tv [untitled] April 29, 2011 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT
, you're able to start. if there is a pre construction site, there is a 72-hour time were you have to coordinate with inspectors to be on-site. in of the permits, the day you get the permit is the day you are authorized to start work. >> thank you. >> is there public comment on this item? >> just a short statement on this case. i briefly reviewed nextg's response. they state that it has evaluated other locations and no alternatives exist. however, in an e-mail to the appellant in which she was trying to alleviate his concerns, the quotation was
"please don't be concerned about undergrounding. we will always work with the cities to determine the best alternative location." i just feel it is strong to say that there are no alternative locations to this case. a quick comment on the vandalism charge. i don't know any of the facts, but i will note that in my case, there was also an accusation of vandalism. these things seem to be very sensitive. i feel that if you look at them the wrong way, they get vandalized. i would be hard-pressed to believe that claim. thank you. >> any other public comment? the commissioners, the matter is submitted. comments, commissioners? >> i am looking for the letter
from -- i am not confused. i see what happened. wait a minute. dufty wrote to mr. flanagan. i'm still not clear on how it was that mr. flanagan got ahold of information dpw said was sent to some member of the board of supervisors. i assume that was former supervisor dufty. i cannot find snaguinetti's letter in my -- there it is. it was sent to supervisor dufty. he was copied. so, i guess i'm leaning toward thinking that --
>> it went to mr. flanagan. and dufty together. they were both on it. >> regardless, i see now what the chain is and i understand that mr. flanagan had been of -- had been advised by city officials that he had no recourse, and that alone to me would be grounds for granting jurisdiction. i think he was misled by a city officials. -- city official. >> i would concur, except i would say it was inadvertent. nonetheless, impact was the same. >> i am going to agree. are there other comments,
commissioners? is there a motion? >> i would move that we grant jurisdiction. he has to file. i'm sorry. >> do you want to make that motion with the finding that you are granting a because the city inadvertently misled the requestor into not believing he had the right to appeal? >> thank you. that is exactly right. >> on that motion by the vice president to grant the request. commissioner fung: aye. president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. that motion is granted. mr. flanaga, you have five days to file an appeal. it will and the close of business monday, april 25.
please be aware of that time frame -- timeframe. you can send somebody on your behalf to file if necessary. ok. we will move on to item 4c, another jurisdiction request. subject property at 1550 and 1552 jones street. letter from eric montoya, requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa number 2011/02/02/9512, which was issued on february 15, 2011. the appeal period ended march 02, 2011, and the jurisdiction request was received at the board office on march 23, 2011. permit holder, nob hill vistas llc. project, kitchen and bathroom remodel, living room and bedroom remodel, install new kitchen appliances and w/d, install new lights and outlets, install new forced air, add
bathroom, remove one wall between kitchen and bathroom on both units on third floor, new roof joists on both units on third floor. we will start with mr. montoya. is there anyone here on behalf of the requestor? ok. commissioners, we can certainly invite the permit-holder up, if you would like. >> why don't we take another case and then come back and see if he had shown up. >> ok. >> is the permit-holders here? ok. >> has there been any communication with him recently? >> there has been nothing from the board office, although i believe that the permit-holder
>> i'm here. >> would you state your name? you have three minutes. >> i really don't have anything else to say. what i submitted in the brief, there is no basis for the request. >> could you speak into the microphone more clearly a more loudly? >> i don't have anything more to add but the brief that was submitted. the person responsible for this is in this room but will not stand up. >> the person who filed is in the room but not standing up to speak? >> is real name is john sulner. he has another case later this evening.
>> he has what? >> he is the man sitting over there with the bald head in the uniform. he is the man responsible for filing the protest. >> and he has what? >> another case. >> another case? >> yes. on a different matter. >> ok, thank you. >> having to do with a different property? >> that is correct. say your name again? >> w.b. coyle. >> de you own a 1000 union street? >> no. >> ok. do you have any other questions, commissioners? thank you. >> is there any department will comment? ok. is there any public comment?
commissioners, if you care to, you can decide this now. >> this filing an appeal or request for jurisdiction in false name rise to the level of fraud? we should do something to discourage it if that is a fact. i would move that we deny the request for jurisdiction. >> i would know it that the brief submitted with the jurisdiction request made a number of allegations. not many facts were provided to support the denial of the jurisdiction request. >> on that motion by the vice president to deny the request, commissioner hwang? commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner peterson: aye.
president goh: i'm ginoing to vote aye, too. i asked the name because i have a flash that he might have been a former landlord of mine. it did not have anything to do with the case. commissioner fung: aye. >> the request is denied. we will move to item 5, appeal number 10-07 -136. this is protesting the issuance on december 14, 2009, permit to alter a building, volunteer removal of a freestanding advertising sign, a property owner consent attached. your speech and was granted on december 8, 2010. this is on the calendar for
rehearing to be. not every 9, 2011, the board voted 2-3 to grant the appeal and overturned the department. lacking the four votes needed to pass, the motion failed and the permit was upheld by operation of law. on march 16, the board voted 4- 0-1 to grant the rehearing request and to set the rehearing for today. >> we can start with the appellant or her agent. you will have seven minutes. >> i am representing my mother. i'm not going to go into the history and background. i will bring the main points. we have been at it for long enough. in the brief, i just wanted to
point out that the grievance letter is just the presentation of the fact that my mother has no education, no background knowledge. whatever her actions caught, it was about the lack of an education and knowledge in any of the matter. the second one, what i wanted to say, definitely because of lack of education, no schooling, she does not read in english, she can barely speak, she definitely did ask assistance from a third party. the third party ultimately did assist. my mother has never signed this letter. i don't know what happened in the process between the assistance and who took advantage of my mother's lack of knowledge of the process, but it is ultimately what happened. another thing is that there was a violation issued. if my mother would have been driven by greed, knowing she
does not have any rights, which was also mentioned, she did not advertise any of her business. she had no knowledge of what had happened. she did not know the consequences of removal in the first place. that is why she thought she could put another sign on the property. it was removed in a timely manner. the removal of the sign, yes, the removal of the sign. my mother has never been told of the consequences of the removal of the sign. the permit was sent at a time when my mother has not been aware of that. it was not heard jurisdiction or her right to know about this, but at the same time, in another briefing from the planning
department, it was clear that during the notice of violation, there are two response parties, the owner of the building and the sign holder. there are responsible parties doing the notice of violation, why there is no responsible party when the permit is issued, because my mother is the owner of the building, where the sign is exhibited and attached. i think that ultimately, and maybe the change as debbie rowe, the owner has to be involved in the whole process of exhibiting the sign and understand what is happening. i guess you have some questions, but those are the main points. >> does your mother speak english? >> she speaks english. she can step out. you can ask questions, but her english, it is not a good english. >> thank you.
>> thank you. we can hear from cbs outdoors. >> my name is john. cbs has limited interest in this matter. ms. ramos acknowledged that we did not engage in any wrongdoing. for that reason, cbs does not really care whether you allow her to repost signs or what not. we do wish to clarify a few procedural steps that seemed to become a model in this case. the first is the notice requirement. a notice of requirement is something that the sign company applies for when neither the city nor the company can find a legal permit for the sign. it is entirely separate from
notice of violations. the planning code does not require that the city provide the property owner with notice of the notice of requirements procedure under 604.1. what the appellate has referred to as the notice of violation procedure, that is what occurs when someone puts up a sign that does not comport with city law. that is under section 610, which does contemplate two responsible parties. again, that is a separate process. from a factual standpoint, we're appellant to receive notice of the notice of requirements. it would not make a difference. cbs removed these signs because it received a letter bearing her signature instructing us to remove the sign, not because of any failure ofc bs to engage or satisfy the notion.
it took internal steps to do so. it received this letter and it took down the sign. cbs also wants -- asks the board to remember that the focus of this hearing is what the additional evidence backs at some -- that strips us of the procedure, how that impacts the calculus. there is an attorney licensed by the state bar of california who advised ms. ramos -- the letter of knowledge to it did provide her some sort of advice. whether that rises to the status of legal representation is something for them and the state bar to decide. he also acknowledged that he did not sign the lease termination letter. that is the nexus of the fact. we believe this hearing should be focused on it. we also ask that the board recognized that this is an appeal of the permit to remove
the sign. it does not have anything to do with the reposting of signs after removal or notices of violation the city then issued. just recognizing that this is about the removal permit, we submit that they have authority and the city validly issued a permit to remove the sign. there was a question of the last hearing whether ms. ramos voluntarily asked for removal of the signs and we submit that is not a relevant issue. on section 604, "when a sign is voluntarily destroyed or removed by its owner," so it is talking about the sign owner, the sign should not be reinstalled. there are limited exceptions that would not be relevant here. believe it or not, we agree with the planning department here that a signed thus removed
cannot be replaced. i am here to answer any questions. otherwise, we rest the case. >> i apologize. i did not get your name. >> marcinier. >> thank you. >> counselor, can you refresh our memories as to the sequence of actions that related to your company's awareness that the owner of the property had changed what type of notice was provided and how that played into the date line that led to removal of the sign? >> yes, sir. to back up to the very beginning of the story, ms. ramos
purchased the property in 2008. the deal that cbs had with her predecessor is that it would provide her with moneys of $125 per year payable in june. she took ownership of the property right after they remit to the last payment to the predecessor in interest. in june, in may of 2009, a year later, cbs sends a check to the predecessor in interest. june 24, 2009, i believe her name was mrs. rector, she said she was not owed any money. at that point, august 4, 2009, the city issued a notice of requirement. just trying to provide context. cbs faxed a letter and a form of
change of ownership so she could take the steps necessary to begin paying her. did i answer your question? >> yes, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president goh, members of the board. our position on this matter remains unchanged. we are not aware of any new facts that would affect how this case would be addressed under the planning code. i would take a couple of minutes to speak to the two issues that were raised in the recent brief. the first issue being that while she does not name particular
culprits, if you will. it is asserted that it is her mother signature on the consent form, as she mentioned, has been forged. we would take this opportunity to note this is a shift from previous suggestions made by mr. farrell, earlier suggestion being that it was a signature may fraudulently by cbs, then that it was not a fraudulent senator. we do not have information to suggest that all that this is a fraudulent or valid signature. we really just find the curiosity in the second issue is that they argue that a planning department response to an application made by the previous company in 2003, prior to her purchase of the
property, this should have been mailed to her. i want to make clear that this is not required under the planning code. it is not our practice to do so. it is worth pointing out that even if the department had sent a copy of this letter to her mother, it would not have had any bearing on the permit to remove these two sides in question. this is regardless of whether the application had been granted or denied or frankly even filed in the first place. the permit to remove the signs would have been processed and approved regardless. this issue has come onto our
dealings. clark's okay, we will move into public comment. i have one speaker card. -- >> ok, we will move into public comment. i have one speaker card. >> thank you and good evening. >> people are not seeking the onslaught of commercial signs. san francisco is a unique and beautiful place but i doubt that there is anyone here would argue with me that we are tired of commercials. i heard people mentioning certain code and this and that and whatever but there is a certain truth regarding the
constitution which has been misunderstood for so long and that is that the constitution trumps all of these codes and all of these laws and must come first. this is the basis of what this country is about. we know that man's long will never solve all these problems, and on and yet the constitution is based on creators loss and how we can use that intelligently to people of intelligence working and monitoring nests in a truthful manner. i see all of these corporate signs everywhere. they are relentlessly inserting commercial against their will. people are bombarded with commercials that they don't want to see. they are louder than the regular shows. i submit that you all consider those before me and those behind me to look up on the enter not
-- on the internet, ronintr uth.blogspot. another prime example would be going on right now out at the masonic regarding signs. that almost caused a problem. there was people up holding signs to save the wild horses. this drew a lot of attention and it caused a lot of upset to the public and the concerned police officers because some of these people know and appreciate forces. despite most of our differences and confusions, we all love horses. the message is why is it that we are allowing the american symbol of truth, beauty, power to be rounded up on land